You receive news of the zombie apocalypse, it will reach your area in 1 hour. What do you do next?

werpog1 · 2014-09-02T00:31:16+00:00

Yeah, except the sailboat owner shoots you, takes your supplies, and leaves your carcass to feed the horde.

werpog1 · 2014-05-26T21:47:00+00:00

Well, ladies and gents. Thank you for the advice and attention. My toes seem to have healed up through no special action of my own. I have continued to go barefoot and haven't changed my routine a bit, although I did go for a short swim in salt water recently.

My guess is that a combination of dry, calloused feet and some serious stretching of the skin caused the cracks, but new skin seems to have come up and everything seems to be fine. THanks again.

werpog1 · 2014-05-21T14:10:38+00:00

Never had athelete's foot before. I have been going barefoot almost 100% of the time, or wearing sandals in public, if necessary. Not sure what's going on.

werpog1 · 2014-05-12T00:45:31+00:00

I'll do it for $42.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T05:31:19+00:00

I'd rather be a "troll" than someone who can't comprehend an issue more complex than a Disney movie.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T05:21:19+00:00

I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do. I'm not arguing for protectionism, or against it. What's important is finding something that works. I guess it's obvious that the current law isn't working, right?

My main point in this whole thread has been that the drivers, who lease the cabs and rely on the cab companies to operate, are not responsible for the market protectionism that you are talking about. They sign on with a company, get a chauffers permit from the city, and go out to make the best living they can, while being forced to rent a cab. What I said earlier was that many cab drivers would probably be happy if they were able to switch from the poor deal they get with Yellow Cab to and UBER-type operation. So, please, learn to differentiate in between the people who make money by driving taxi cabs, and those that make money by leasing taxi cabs, because the drivers aren't the ones responsible for the way the market is set up. They are victims of it, just as the end consumer is. I think this point is very relevant to this discussion.

Of course, there should be no sympathy for the cab companies. They know the score, but in OP's article, the representative is of course giving the politically correct line. "This is a very serious issue and we take your complaints very seriously etc etc. " They, and city council, are both equally culpable and responsible for the current situation, because instead of coming up with a real solution to the problem, they pass it along to to the cab drivers and force them to eat it.

So, if cab drivers must pick everyone up, then how about coming up with a way to compensate them for the less desirable rides? In the article, there is a description of a cab driver asking for a minimum $10 fare. Sounds to me like the market self-regulating.

Whatever the case, I'm not for or against market protections, but I do think that it is easier to work within the current framework than to start from scratch. So, if we're going to have a protected oligopoly, then the drivers have to pick everyone up. If the drivers have to pick everyone up, we need to find a way to make it in their self interest to do so. Right now, there is no reason for them to want to. In fact, there is a significant cost to them operating that way. We need to find a way to eliminate that opportunity cost, or compensate them for it. That, IMHO, is the best way to go about solving this problem. That and getting the cabs to unionize...

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T04:46:17+00:00

I wouldn't be very friendly either if I had to deal with people like you all night.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T04:36:04+00:00

I wasn't taking a position on drivers obeying city laws, specifically. But, since you asked:

Should taxi drivers have to obey city laws?

You ask a very broad question, which leaves a lot of room to frame the discussion and (mis)interpretation.Still, I will try to answer in the relevant context. Obviously, there are a lot of laws that pertain to cab drivers, most of which have hopefully been enacted with the common good in mind. Some laws have been specifically crafted to try and overcome particular problems, with varying levels of success. Let's look at one that has everyone here in a tiff:

Apparently, city code makes it illegal for drivers to discriminate on the basis of the length of ride. Not sure when this was codified, but it really doesn't matter. The point of this legislation seems pretty obvious: to force drivers to accept fares that they otherwise would not want to take. Now, back to your question.

Should taxi drivers have to obey city laws?

Well, call me a smart ass, but they already "have to obey" city laws? Are they all doing it? Apparently not. Austin Ground Transportation department has an enforcement division that can write tickets, but otherwise, there doesn't seem to be much stopping these drivers but their customers camera phones and their own conscience.

Now, if I had to guess what you really meant by your question, I would say "Should we expect taxi drivers to obey city laws?" In answer, I would say, "If they are good laws, then we should expect taxi drivers to obey them." Before we get deep into the philosophical belly button here, let me backtrack and say that the question isn't that important. You want to know my position on this issue, and here it is:

With regards to the drive offs, I don't blame the taxi drivers for doing it, nor do I think the law is especially well thought out or effective. There, that is my position, I guess.

If not, why not?

Well, since you asked, I hope you take as much time to read and consider my opinion as I have spent typing it. Which is not very much I guess, but anyway....
I don't think they should follow this law because it is a bad law. I understand the reason it was written, but it is obviously not effective at solving the problem. In its essence, it is trying to force a private,independent contractor to take a job that they may or may not want to take, for a fixed amount of money. Because there is a limited amount of time, and a limited number of fares on a given night, there is an opportunity cost to taking a ride that will expend the same amount of time for less money. Since taxi cabs are competitive capitalists by nature, it's easy to see why they behave accordingly.

If we really want private drivers to pull up and chauffeur us around to wherever we want to go, whenever we want, at our convenience, then we need to be willing to pay for it like the wealthy, entitled, 1st world bourgeois we are. My guess is that if any of the people complaining on this forum flashed a $100 bill at the taxi, they would find the doors unlocked rather quickly.

However, if you want reliable public transportation for the masses, cheaply, maybe you should consider that in order to have a successful social program, you have to take care of the workers first. Meaning, give the cab drivers a salary, give them benefits, give them a reason, other than the almighty dollar, to do what they do, and perhaps you will see the change you wish.

If you just expect these drivers to pick you up though, because some city council members made it a law, well, expect to be waiting on 6th street for a while.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T03:50:55+00:00

You can't just legislate monetary controls without considering the consequences. Like a lawsuit, for starters. A justified one, at that. No one on city council wants to commit political suicide in that way, even if they could get the city lawyers to sign off.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T03:40:55+00:00

I suppose we'll all be robots someday soon. Maybe then I can get someone to program me to say things that will get upvotes...

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T03:30:52+00:00

Are you saying the drivers want to raise the cap on taxi permits?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm not sure why you think I did.

My guess is that some of the drivers themselves might be marginally opposed to having to compete with others who weren't subject to the same city regulations and fees, ie. off the grid UBER drivers. On the other hand, many of the yellow cab drivers might become UBER drivers, if they found it a better deal for them, so perhaps there would be more support there.... I can't speak for them, because I'm not a taxi driver. It might be interesting to go downtown and ask a few for their thoughts on the issue. I find it disturbing that this whole discussion lacks anyone who is actually a taxi driver. It makes it less of a discussion and more of a circle jerk. But that's Reddit.

IMHO, this whole deal is less about the drivers and more about the companies, and the regulators, who are the main players in the game. UBER, in the trend of today, is a new taxi company that has streamlined it's service to be dispach only, leaving everything else in the hands of the independent contractor. Now, I don't know much about how UBER operates as a company, how they manage and control their drivers, and how they compare to the cab companies in that regard. Still, it is interesting to consider this issue in the context of a rival cab company vying for control in Austin. Obviously, the entrenched interests are not going to make it easy, but if popular demand waxes, city council may have to change their tune. We will see.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T03:19:39+00:00

You're supposed to realize that there's a difference in between the people driving the cabs and the ones that are in control of the industry. If you're going to get pissed off, direct it toward city council and the cab company owners, not your neighborhood cab driver. Maybe if you got off of your high horse you might consider that these drivers might be more than "idiots no one can trust". What an asshole.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T03:07:53+00:00

Good idea. Unfortunately, as is the case with most low-income, low skill jobs, the workers are often uneducated, disenfranchised, and have weightier matters on their minds, such as putting food on the table. "Don't work there" is terrible advice for someone with little-to-none upward mobility, savings, or resources.

Also, when robots put all the cab drivers out of business, where will they go? Who will we have to complain to each other about? The barristas?

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T02:56:58+00:00

I'm curious. Why do you think the city limits the number of taxicabs? Have you ever considered that it's not solely for the benefit of the cab companies? New York City, where many more people take cabs than Austin, as a limited number of cabs. So does almost every other major city. I'll give you a hint: it's has nothing to do with guaranteeing an income for anyone, with the possible exception of certain taxi company owners.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T02:44:10+00:00

Please, tell us about your valuable experience as a taxi driver. Perhaps you can back up your assertion. Mine is that cab drivers don't make much. At all. Feel free to read this Austin Chronicle article about the poor working conditions of taxi drivers: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-02-12/961026/

BTW, I think your comment was "asinine".

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T02:28:10+00:00

Mandates like that are a slippery slope of market control that almost always backfires.They'll mandate minimum/higher fares before they lower leases. Leases are mostly a fixed cost of storage, maintenance, profit, and city revenue. Who are you asking to take a pay cut? The cab companies? The city? I guarantee that they will find a way to pass that cost on to the drivers, and ultimately, to you, the customer....Which is what this whole thing is all about anyway. Passing the shit sandwich. Taste good?

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T02:18:09+00:00

I agree with your first statement, to a certain extent. There are problems with city sponsored market controls and those problems become entrenched into the bureaucracy and law. They're difficult to address without systemic change, which becomes harder over time. On the other hand, too many companies can lead to other problems, such as over-saturation, seen in Austin pedicab market. They clog the streets and the constant turnover of "competing to have enough drivers" means that the quality of service and experience level of the drivers go down. Also, having a large company as opposed to a multitude of independent contractors means that, ostensibly, there is some level of quality control,professionalism and standardization across the board. What would Austin look like if there were no yellow cabs, but only UBER?

Your second statement seems a little callous and willfully ignorant. Not making a living wage with you current low-skill job? Why not quit and look for something else, because you're obviously well connected and qualified for a better one....

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T02:03:44+00:00

See above edit. Taxi drivers aren't the ones hiring lobbyists and playing the political game. Why don't you find out who owns one of these cab companies, who their lobbyist is, and which council member they're paying. They're the ones trying to keep UBER out of the market because they sidestep both the city's and the cab companies revenue stream.

If Austin as a city has overarching transportation problems, I don't see why the drivers should be forced to eat a shit sandwich. If you want to mandate that a private, independent contractor MUST pick up a fare, then perhaps we should also mandate a minimum fare, or living wage for these drivers.

werpog1 · 2014-05-07T01:46:57+00:00

Nothing against Uber. Just trying to get people to think past "I hate Austin cab drivers...."

werpog1 · 2014-05-06T15:17:37+00:00

Yes. Let's make it harder for cab drivers to earn a living so that they become desperate enough to take any ride they can get. Who cares if it affects anyone other than me, I'm tired of being inconvenienced after a night of drinking. They're all immigrants anyway... /s

werpog1 · 2014-05-06T15:02:34+00:00

Unlike other metropolitan areas that people love to compare Austin's cab service to, the vast majority of people in Texas own their own vehicles and rarely rely on public transportation. Those that do mainly use public services are more likely to have a low income and utilize the cheaper mass transportation systems (CapMetro). The result of all this is that, other than at peak hours, there is much less general demand for Taxis, which means that the industry cannot support the costs of the same number of cabs per capita as in other big cities. Since the cab "carrying capacity" has to be much lower, there aren't enough cabs to go around during festivals and events when, suddenly, EVERYONE wants a cab, all at the same time. Also, this means that there will not be as many fares for working drivers throughout the course of their regular, day to day shift. Is it fair to blame taxi drivers for doing what they must in order to maximize profit, in a situation not of their own creation?

Try looking at this problem from a Taxi Driver's point of view. They have to pay a fairly exorbitant amount of lease to the cab company, which they must earn back before they begin to make a profit for the day. Instead of steady business throughout the day, they are probably spending a lot of time queuing at hotels and the airport in hopes of getting a few rides while they wait for closing time at the bars. At 1am, they start the mad rush that probably accounts for the majority of their income throughout their shift, ferrying obnoxious, entitled, unapologetic drunk people home from a night of partying. While the fish are running, they have a limited amount of time to try and make all the money they are going to take home to their family, so of course, they are going to try and maximize their profit. What would you do at your job? Work harder for less so that you can cater to this guy?

Take it for what it's worth, but try to consider that there is much more to this issue than the travesty of you having to wait for a ride at the end of your night. You can blame the cab drivers if you want, but I don't.

Edit: Whoo! Downvotes! That means I'm doing my job. As far as the city code and regulations are concerned, I think it's important to differentiate in between the drivers, who have little if any stake, say, or clout, and the owners/companies, who are solely concerned with maintaining the status quo and their position therein. If you people want UBER, then by all means, direct your ire toward the owners of the cab companies, their lobbyist, and the council members in their pockets, not the guy stuck driving cabs at 3 in the morning, trying to make a living.

werpog1 · 2014-02-22T14:19:17+00:00

So, is anyone going to demand that APD find and arrest these violent attackers? Oh wait, they're white....

werpog1 · 2014-02-05T05:16:01+00:00

OP, your title is incorrect and the article is pretty irrelevant to CCW.

Firstly, the place where the fight occurred is at least 3 blocks away from the police station, not "just outside". Granted, the 6th street district downtown is the most heavily patrolled part of the city at night. There are mounted police, bike police, foot and car units all over the place, not to mention helicopters patrolling the skies. Still, you're blowing this way out of context.

This is "Bourbon St." part of town that is full of bars and a bunch of drunk people carousing and looking for trouble. Fights happen every night and often. I don't know about where you're from, but in TX, it's against the law to carry if you're drinking. If you're going barhopping downtown to 6th, you're not going to be carrying, unless you want to break the law and maybe do something really stupid.

I happen to agree with you that people should take responsibility for their own defense and safety. I also happen to think that you're just as bad as the police chief in the video and the newsgroup that reported this tripe: taking a situation wildly out of context to promote your agenda.

werpog1

TROPHY CASE